Politics Reign at Spotted Owl Hearing

By TIMOTHY EGAN,

Published: January 9, 1992

PORTLAND, Ore., Jan. 8—
For only the third time in history the Cabinet-level committee known as the "God squad" began deliberations today on whether certain economic activities of man are more important than the potential extinction of an animal species.

But the hearings here by the panel, the Endangered Species Committee, concerning the northern spotted owl were only a few minutes old when it became dominated by internal conflicts of the Bush Administration over environmental policies.

Today, in a surprise move, the Environmental Protection Agency, which has harshly criticized Government policies that favor logging in the Pacific Northwest, abruptly withdrew from the hearings before Administrative Law Judge Harvey Sweitzer, taking with it some of the most crucial evidence on behalf of saving the owl. 'There Was a Deal'

While the agency's lawyer, Tim Backstrom, offered no explanation for the withdrawal from the fact-finding hearings, critics said that political pressure had been brought against them.

"There was a deal struck here somewhere," said Victor Sher, a lawyer with the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. "To withdraw on the eve of a trial is wrong and inexplicable."

Gordon Bender, chief of staff to the agency's Administrator, William K. Reilly, said in Washington that the agency no longer needed to participate in the hearings because other administrative means had been developed for bringing information to the committee.

Ultimately, the decision on whether the Bureau of Land Management can be granted an exemption from the Endangered Species Act rests with the seven-member committee, which will vote in March. But that group, called "the God squad" because of its authority to let a species become extinct if it decides that saving jobs is more important, must make its decision based on the record developed in these hearings, which are expected to last about a month.

"After what happened this morning, we are concerned that the process is seriously flawed," said Melinda Bruce, a lawyer with the state of Oregon.

The withdrawal of the Government environmental advocate comes at a time when other Bush Administration leaders are attacking the Endangered Species Act.

The landmark 1973 law, one of the nation's most powerful pieces of environmental legislation, comes up for reauthorization by Congress this year. While the law has led to protection for 639 threatened or endangered species, critics, including the Secretary of Interior, whose job it is to enforce the act, say it has caused economic turmoil, particularly here in the northwest timber country, where logging on Federal land has been restricted to protect the owl.

"I have come to the conclusion in dealing with more than 25 endangered species that the way we do this thing is all wrong," said Manuel Lujan Jr., the Interior Secretary, in Washington. "My job is to protect these species, but by the same token I must make available to the American people these natural resources."

Mr. Lujan said he was in favor of changing the law so that, rather than saving individual species, it would give protection to whole ecosystems. "This law was meant to be used as a shield but instead it has been used as a sword," Mr. Lujan said. "It is not just the spotted owl. The Delta smelt, Colorado squaw fish, the desert tortoise. There is no end to it."

The Endangered Species Committee, which is headed by Mr. Lujan, can let logging proceed in the old growth forest that is home to the owl in Oregon if the group finds that economic considerations outweigh those of the owl's significance.

But the hearings today showed just how divided the Government's house is. Two agencies, both of them part of the Interior Department, are pitted against each other in the fact-finding proceedings here before Judge Sweitzer.

"It's like an inter-family feud," said Mr. Lujan. "I feel like two of my children are going at it." But critics say that because of his criticism of the Endangered Species Act, he is incapable of making an impartial decision. Question of Logging

One agency, the Bureau of Land Management, has asked that it be allowed to go ahead with logging on about 4,500 acres of Federal land in western Oregon on which fewer than 50 owls depend.

Fewer than 500 of the birds are left in existence. The owl was listed as a threatened species in 1990.

Another agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, has said that logging would imperil the owl. It is that agency's role in these hearings to act as the protector and defender of the owl.

In opening statements today Government lawyers offered contrary views of what is at stake.

If the logging cannot proceed on the Federal land in question, "it is far more likely to result in homeless people rather than homeless owls," said Robert W. Nesbit, a lawyer with the Bureau of Land Management.

The timber industry has run into hard times, in part because of environmental restrictions and in part because the recession has caused homebuilding and demand for wood to slump. Because timber demand is down, no jobs would be lost by not cutting the 200- to 500-year-old trees in question, said Patrick Parenteau, a lawyer for the Fish and Wildlife Service.

"There's no need for this timber at this time," he said in his opening statement. "But because there is so little of this old growth left, the mere existence of it has economic benefits. Cutting down the last of the magnificent old growth forest in the Pacific Northwest does nothing to advance the economic vision of the region."

The question of economic value is crucial. Under normal circumstances, job or monetary loss is not considered in whether to grant endangered species designations. But it weighs heavily in the "God squad" deliberations.

Five members of the committee must vote to approve an exemption from the Endangered Species Act.